The Australian reports today that members of the PM’s Muslim Community Reference Group (MCRG) have taken a break from calling for government acceptance of Hezbollah as ‘freedom fighters’, and chanting “death to the enemies” (of Lebanon) at anti-war rallies to put forward a rather novel idea. The MCRG are calling for the establishment of a mentoring program for converts to Islam, complete with an ‘orientation pack’ for new Muslims.
MUSLIM leaders have urged the Howard Government to back a plan that would help prevent new converts to Islam from having their minds poisoned by extremist clerics.
Under the proposal by John Howard’s Muslim advisory board, mentors would bring converts into the fold to stop them falling into the hands of radicals.
There appears to be a common pattern emerging in the MCRG’s dealings with government: highlight some supposed ‘threat’ and then propose a solution that requires the expenditure of public funds to achieve it. In this case, the MCRG are promoting the threat of the radicalised convert and then asking that the government ‘back’ (i.e. fund) the production and distribution of supposed ‘convert packs’.
The proposal, called “engaging with converts to Islam”, is part of the group’s 32-page interim report obtained by The Australian. The report urges the development and implementation of “an orientation pack for converts, containing details of recommended mentors within the Muslim community”.
This would “minimise the risk that new converts to Islam will be vulnerable to extremists”, the report says. The MCRG urges the Australian Government to support it, given the prominence of some converts in extremist-related events.
Firstly, is there any evidence whatsoever that converts are in greater danger of radicalisation than others that were born Muslim? As anyone who has worked for a grassroots organisation would attest, the biggest challenge facing Muslim converts is continuing to practice their religion. Many, many people convert to Islam only to ‘drop out’ due to a variety of reasons that are far beyond the scope of this discussion.
It seems, however, that converts are being targeted for special attention because of events abroad where some converts have been found as part of terrorist plots or cells. There is also something intrinsically menacing to the broader community about a man who turns his back on his culture and religion to fight against that same culture.
Mr Soliman said converts were vulnerable to feeling isolated from Muslim and other communities and were considered prime candidates for extremist recruitment.
“You might have the more extremists of the groups or the recruiters looking for these types of people, understanding their vulnerability, understanding their yearning to connect on a deeper level,” he said.
Again, the idea that there are ‘recruiters’ actively searching for new converts and preying on their impressionable minds isn’t really supported by reality. If one looks at the people who have been arrested or charged thus far, the overwhelming majority of them have been Lebanese Muslims. Of course, nobody would suggest that we need special packs for Lebanese men, and yet there is now the suggestion that because some converts may have landed in trouble we need to give them special treatment. The fact is that those converts that do become radicalised don’t become ‘radicalised’ (if such a word even applies) immediately after conversion but they — at least, those whose cases I am familiar with — moved gradually towards their ideological destination (whatever that might be). In that sense, they are like everyone else.
The idea that converts are coming to Islam with a lot of ideological baggage such as anti-semitism and anti-Western sentiment is also not supported by any evidence. Whilst it may be true in some isolated cases, logic would suggest that the opposite is more common: people who grew up in the standard Australian cultural millieu do not hold the same sorts of views about Jewish people as, say, Muslims who grew up in the Middle East. Whereas the attitude to Jews in Western culture is overwhelmingly positive, they do not enjoy such good press in the Muslim and Arab world.
Regardless, government-funded ‘conversion packs’ makes little sense. If someone is indeed converting to Islam because he seeks validation of his anti-Semitism in the texts of this religion, he is not going to be dissuaded by a government pack advising him to not be extreme and to seek the guidance of some confirmed moderate mentors instead. If someone has decided to adopt a radical interpretation of the faith, then he won’t decide to question that faith just because he sees a glossy folder stamped with a government logo. If anything, a radical would see the interference of government in the religious affairs of Muslims as a validation of the old critique that Western governments are conspiring against Islam.
Furthermore, people are not converting at the hands of the MCRG. The MCRG, government and peak organisations do not know who is converting, where they are converting or what ideas they are adopting after conversion because, unlike many other faiths, Islam is completely decentralised. Nobody even knows how many people convert to Islam each year and how people renounce it. How can anyone then seriously suggest that they or any other individual organisation has the capability to get this information to new converts?
Yet, the most serious aspect of this proposal is that its advocates are effectively arguing that there is a real and significant threat posed by Muslim conversion. And surely that is not a message that serves the best interests of Muslim converts nor the broader Muslim community.
12 comments ↓
assalamu ‘alaykum
I find this cosying up between “community leaders” and governments worrying. The same is happening here in the UK. They’re in danger of creating a de facto clerical grouping.
Thanks, but I don’t need or want a government-approved Islam.
wasalam
Agreed. The vast majority of converts (at least here in the US) are NOT anti-semitic entering Islam. In fact, they tend to be some of the most open-minded individuals, which is a quality that led them to study Islam in the first place.
I would say that the only ones who may be susceptible to extremist groups are those with mental issues - something that the Muslim community is very ill equipped to deal with.
A very good brother (a tableeghi) was killed in the masjid by a convert with a mental problem. Another who thought he was receiving ‘wahee’ hacked four people to death. I shutter to think what would have happen if people like this are approached by extremists.
It is for this reason that I feel that we should be very careful with the fiery anti-whoever speeches.
Other than that, I’d say there is LESS danger of converts being extremists.
Excellent point, Tariq. It’s intersting but if you look at all the people who have been arrested on terror charges in Australia, a number of them were/are on medication for various psychiatric conditions. For example, see http://www.smh.com.au/articles.....l?from=rss and http://www.theage.com.au/news/.....42105.html I understand that at least one other has even been hospitalised at various points in his life for psychosis. I wonder to what extent other alleged terrorists elsewhere in the world are really just mentally ill people who came into contact with a ‘radical’ and ‘fiery’ version of Islam. It certainly seems plausible.
Amir,
If I’m not mistaken, it was reported that Richard Reid (the “shoe bomber”) and Zakaryious Mousaoui both had mental problems as well
Accordinng to the academic orthodoxy, it is not permissable to contend that terrorists are mentally ill. Other explanations must be “constructed.” I’ve never been in a position to conduct the research myself into the psychiatric histories of Islamist terrorists - I’ve only been able to go on secondary surces - but at the least, I think there is an important chicken/egg issue: just because someone had not been diagnosed with a disorder or psychopathology before committing a terrorist act, does not mean that the psychosis wasn’t there. I mean, psychiatry in the Middle East? That the ex-mujahedeen from Afghanistan (USSR invasion) were not profoundly disturbed by their experiences to the extent that it warped their minds? But more to the point, is not the very act of self-destruction in the pursuit of mass murder profoundly indicative of a pathology in the first place?
Thing is - and here’s where I get a bit Da Vinci Code - it is absolutely not in the interests of political scientists to pathologise terrorist actions because that removes them as analysts of the situation. The situation becomes medicalisedand, no longer within the pol sci purview.
And those groups whose political interests benefit from terrorist action, tho the majority themselves are too sane to blow themselves up, have no intention of delegitimising their cause by admitting that their most active reps are batshit crazy.
General note: I don’t agree with everything around here, but this is a fantastic blog.
Through personal contacts, I have managed to get a sneak peak at the draft program for ” Moderate Muslim induction (MMI) 101; the 7 day path to guaranteed moderate muslims that will be run by the reference group.
”
From: The grand Moslem poobah, of the southern ocean, lord of heaven, light of the worlds etc…
To: Howard, ruler of the infidels, and his baldrich, Andrew Robb
Please find attaching the attachment re the course for deliciously moderating Moslems (ps hoe is jineettee ?)
Day 1
10am: Morning spiritual moment (best with short macchiato and prayer crystal)
Morning Tawheed workshop: God is one….maybe
Lunch: (c/o; children of Abraham catering) hummus, pitta bread and salsa, (fruit only if it has voluntarily fallen from the tree)
3pm: mid afternoon “think happy thoughts” theatre company; street theatre at the Rodney king lecture Hall
5pm, evening spiritual moment ( tablets to be arranged )
Dinner and evening spiritual sufi whirling course (please bring lubricant and loose trousers)
Late lecture; topic tonight “Ariel Sharon, the misunderstood hero of sabra and shatiila’ at the Ibn warraq auditorium
superb piece by Madeline Bunting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....56,00.html
[…] There is a post over at Austrolabe about the implied threat in Australia of Muslim converts as well as a post at Planet Grenada about radical trends amongst African American converts. […]
Excellent post and commnetary. But maybe its also involves the projection of masculuniy by young males see http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.co.....inity.html and http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.co.....art-2.html
Fortunately, there haven’t been enough samples of ‘Western Muslim terrorists’ for any real conclusions to be formed. I think, for some, it may be simply mental illness that leads people to violence or to threaten violence. I would assume that this would be the principle motivation behind those individuals that act alone, such as Richard Reid, because I suspect mentally ill people would find it difficult to mantain the social interaction and cohesiveness needed to operate a successful terrorist cell. For other people, such as the 7/7 bombers, it may be the same sort of nihilistic rage that motivates other youths to kill their school mates (as has happened in the US at various times). Brendan O’Neill wrote a fascinating piece arguing just that in a recent issue of Spiked Online that makes worthwhile reading.
Although I am not a proponent of “its the foreign policy, stupid” argument, the video of the London bombers would question whether the attack was “meaningless”.
[…] Austrolabe: The threat of conversion […]
Leave a Comment